Bill Plaschke, over at the Chicago Tribune, wrote an asinine opinion piece about Peyton Manning replacing Tim Tebow as quarterback for the Denver Broncos. The premise of the piece is this question: Why won’t the NFL let a “class act” like Tebow play in the NFL?
First, I personally don’t think Tebow is a class act. Sure, he’s not sexting like Brett Favre. But at least Favre was doing what he does in private.
Tebow doesn’t do anything in private. He’s what the Bible calls a hypocrite. He makes his faith a public spectacle.
Think about it. Tebow believes there’s an all powerful, and all knowing, magical being that bends the laws of physics to help him win football games if he puts on a public spectacle.
As an atheist I think Tebow’s belief makes him out to be an idiot.
As someone with deep faith, I’d be outraged that Tebow believes that God is taking time out of his busy day to help him in such trivial pursuits. It’s such an ego trip. It’s like a four year old boy yelling out, “I’m important because I have a big brother who can kick your ass.” Only a lot more offensive to theists and atheists alike.
So, I do not believe that Tebow is a class act. His shtick, his spectacle, his pandering, is highly demeaning to nearly everyone. Everyone except for that minority of theists who find comfort in believing that God helps devotes win football games while letting children starve.
And furthermore, Plaschke’s piece is simply poorly argued. At one point Plaschke criticizes people who forget Tebow’s victories while focusing on his beliefs. In other words, criticizing people for focusing on the very spectacle that Tebow performs at every game.
However, Plaschke then argues that Tebow should be praised for his “strength born of faith.”
Look, Plaschke, you can’t criticize people for focusing on Tebow’s faith and then demand that Tebow should be praised for his faith.
And second of all, if Tebow’s “strength” was based on empiricism, instead being born of faith, he’d still be a quarterback in the NFL. In other words, faith doesn’t matter. Real world results do.
So, Plaschke, to answer your original question, if Tebow can’t find another quarterback job in the NFL, it will have nothing to do with his faith or the classiness of his shtick. It’ll be because he’s simply is not good enough.
And here’s the last reason Plaschke piece was asinine. He argues that Tebow is a worthy quarterback but that the NFL will not accept him. Well, he’s already been proved wrong on that. Apparently the Jets want Tebow fever. Plaschke, it makes no sense to argue that Tebow is a worthy quarterback but won’t be allowed to play. The NFL doesn’t care about a person’s faith. Only if they can win. And clearly Tebow has proved that. It’s just that Manning has more proof.
I recently re-watched the 1971 sci-fi classic, the Andromeda Strain. Despite being rated G, not PG, not R, but G, there are scenes that show a very attractive set of naked female breasts, three naked male butts, and a few illegal drug references.
Did I mention it was rated G?!
How did we get from the permissive, open, and free thinking time of the 70s to a time where the current leading Republican candidate for President thinks that birth control should be illegal even when used by married couples?!
Back in the 70s, it was perfectly acceptable for kids to see breasts. What’s wrong with seeing breasts? Breasts are a part of life. We all have them. Nowadays even R movies rarely show breasts. Conservatives even freak out when mothers feed their babies. What the fuck is wrong with feeding children?!
It’s easy to say, “Well, the pendulum has swung back.” But what makes it swing back? Rick Santorum was about 13 when the Andromeda Strain came out. So Rick was a teenager during that time of freedom and openness. What caused him and others from that generation to turn against it?
Do children simply always turn against what their parents do? Is our country’s massive turn to the right merely a different side of the same coin as the 60′s counter-culture movement?
Or maybe when the economy is in the dumps our fears of the future make us more conservative. And conversely, when the economy is great, we’re more comfortable and relaxed and just enjoy the ride.
Or have the wealthy people who actually run our country decided that there’s more money to be made with a compliant conservative populace and have conditioned us through their media outlets to act accordingly?
I don’t have an answer, but I do know this. The 70s were fucking awesome.
A non-geek uses technology to better or improve his life.
A geek modifies technology to better or improve his life.
A non-geek modifies his life to fit around technology.
A geek modifies technology to fit around his life.
A non-geek asks, “What does this do?”
A geek wonders, “What can I make this do?”
I just came across this quote in an article about a Chinese factory:
Management of the living quarters has recently been outsourced to a local operations company in an attempt to address concerns about an employer managing living conditions of its workers.
You know we’re screwed when factories in China start outsourcing their own management.
Working as a clerk for judge for as long as I have, I have plenty of “friends” in prison. These guys are defendants who, despite being in prison for a long time, with a long time to go, will obsessively write letters, briefs, writs, etc. They’re constantly coming up with new reasons why they should be let out. As if that’s going to happen.
When we deny their requests, they file appeals. And appeals of those appeals. Then federal appeals of those appeals. And when it’s finally done, they start all over again.
The one common characteristic of these guys is that they were all sentenced to life with a possibility of parole.
You might think that having a possibility of parole would be a good thing. But I’m not so sure.
Lifers are lifers. They know they’re never getting out. They file their initial appeals, but eventually they accept it. They’re broken and they no longer have any hope of getting out.
But when you tell someone he might get out, he’s unable to think of anything else. It becomes his obsession.
He can see a light at the end of the tunnel. Or you could think of it as a carrot that’s just out of reach and he’s always trying to grab it. “Maybe this time it will work,” he thinks.
I wish I could convince these guys to accept their fate. Sure, they might get paroled. That’s a possibility. But that doesn’t also mean we’re going to let them out because of some bizarre and poorly argued technicality that none of their previously attorneys thought of.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I just read that on Saturn’s moon Titan, it’s so cold that ice is as hard as granite. With my imagination at full steam, I realized that the inhabitants there would obviously use it as a building material. So if we traveled there we could tell the inhabitants, “Back home we’d liquefy then drink this building.”
Of course that led to this question: Is there a place in the universe where the inhabitants drink granite?
I’m an atheist living in a rural right-wing redneck part of the rust belt. Despite the vast number of bible thumpers in my city, my son and daughter are probably the only kids in the area that do not watch shows such as South Park or R rated movies.
I should point out that I first noticed this back when my son was 7. All of his friends love South Park and Family Guy and watch horror movies such as Saw. But I won’t let my kids watch them. Why am I the one acting like a bible thumper?
I certainly do not think watching South Park will turn any kid evil. He’s not going to start kicking his baby brother like a football because he watched a cartoon. And even if he did, that only means he’s already a sociopath, which had nothing to do with the TV programing other than a show giving a bad kid a bad idea.
And I’m certainly not a prude. For example, I have nothing against profanity. In fact, I cannot understand why anyone would be offended and upset over sounds used to form nonsensical words.
Take “fuck” for example. If I say, “fuck this” I’m not making an imperative, “Have sex with this object now.” What I’m really saying is that “I’m really pissed.” Why would anyone be offended over that? It makes no sense to me at all.
And I have no problem with my kids listening to any form of music, even satanic music. (Knights in Satan’s Service dude!)
In fact, the so called offensive content in shows such as South Park is not actually the reason my kids can’t watch them. It’s that I’d prefer my kids to watch kids’ shows. Why? Because they’re still kids.
As Lisa Simpson famously said:
It’s because they are kids! And so are we! Come on, Alex, we’ve only got nine, maybe ten years tops where we can giggle in church, and chew with our mouths open and go days without bathing! We’ll never have that freedom again.
As kids they can still enjoy the simple pleasures of shows such as Phineas and Ferb. They’ll have blast watching Diary of a Wimpy Kid. I just see no good reason for them to turn into teenagers before their teens.
If 8 year old kids are watching shows such as South Park and movies such as Saw, what are they going to find enjoyable when they’re 16? Tijuana donkey films? As far as I’m concerned, that can wait until college!
You’ve probably heard about Joseph Stack who burned down his house and flew his plane into an IRS building in Texas to protest his tax bill. One person died in the attack and several were injured. The building is a complete loss. We’re talking about several million dollars worth of property damage alone.
I love this quote from his daughter who called him a “hero” but also said his actions were “inappropriate.”
To me an inappropriate act is more synonymous with farting in public or talking during a movie. In my mind calling Stack’s acts of destruction, murder, and attempted murder merely “inappropriate” is in itself way beyond inappropriate.
But then again, maybe she’s as nuts as her dad.